Jury Awards Running Royalty in Wireless Patent Infringement

Case Background

Collision Communications, Inc., a Delaware-based telecommunications research and development company, sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. Collision, formed in 2011, developed proprietary methods for reducing signal interference in wireless networks. The patents at the center of the dispute originated from research conducted at BAE Systems, a multinational defense, security, and aerospace company. BAE had worked on multi-user detection techniques to address interference and noise problems that plagued wireless communications technology, particularly in decentralized and ad hoc network environments. Collision was created with the goal of bringing that patented technology to market.

According to the complaint, Samsung engaged in discussions with Collision around 2011 regarding the patented technology and a potential business partnership. Collision alleged that Samsung received actual notice of the patents through those discussions. Samsung admitted it had notice of the patents at least from receiving the original complaint in this matter but denied the remaining allegations.

Cause

Collision accused Samsung of infringing four patents covering wireless signal processing and interference management technology. The patents addressed challenges in multi-user wireless communications, where multiple users transmit signals on the same channel, making it difficult for receivers to detect information tied to any individual user.

The '703 Patent and '651 Patent, both titled "Joint Symbol, Amplitude, and Rate Estimator," covered systems for processing digital data streams from multiple users through iterative estimation of symbols, channel amplitude, and data rate. The '505 Patent, titled "System For Parameter Estimation and Tracking of Interfering Digitally Modulated Signals," covered a system for simultaneously tracking interfering signals in real time through ultra-fast parameter estimation. The '492 Patent, titled "Combinational Hybrid Turbo-MUD," addressed problems with multi-user detection in noisy wireless environments by using a decision unit to select appropriate detection methods based on real-time conditions.

Injury

Collision alleged Samsung incorporated the patented technology into a broad range of consumer electronics and network equipment without a license. The accused products included Samsung devices with 4G, 5G, and Wi-Fi connectivity, spanning the Galaxy S, Galaxy Z Fold, Galaxy Z Flip, Galaxy A, Galaxy M, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Watch, and Galaxy XCover product lines. The accusations also extended to Samsung laptops, Wi-Fi-connected home appliances, and Samsung base station products that supported MU-MIMO technology.

Damages Sought

Collision sought a reasonable royalty for Samsung's infringement, enhanced damages based on willful infringement, injunctive relief, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and costs.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff: Collision Communications, Inc.

Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Claims

Collision asserted claims 1 and 5 of the '703 Patent, claims 1 and 3 of the '651 Patent, claim 1 of the '505 Patent, and claim 1 of the '492 Patent. The company alleged Samsung directly infringed these patents by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing accused products in the United States. Collision also alleged indirect infringement, claiming Samsung induced its customers and end users to infringe by encouraging them to use the 4G, 5G, and Wi-Fi capabilities of the accused products. Collision further alleged that Samsung's infringement was willful, asserting Samsung had known about the patents since discussions between the two companies around 2011.

Defense

Samsung denied all infringement allegations across all four patents, asserting it did not infringe directly, indirectly, literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents. Samsung also challenged the validity of all asserted patent claims, arguing they failed to comply with the requirements of Title 35, including Sections 101, 102, 103, 112, and 116. Samsung raised prosecution history estoppel as a defense for each patent. Samsung further argued Collision's damages were limited under statutory provisions, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and 287, and contended Collision or its licensees failed to comply with patent marking requirements. Samsung also asserted defenses of license, implied license, and patent exhaustion, as well as waiver, equitable estoppel, acquiescence, and unclean hands. Samsung denied any willful infringement and contested Collision's standing to bring the lawsuit.

Jury Verdict

A jury trial commenced on October 3, 2025, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. On October 10, 2025, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Collision Communications on all counts.

On the question of infringement, the jury found Samsung infringed claims 1 and 5 of the '703 Patent, claims 1 and 3 of the '651 Patent, claim 1 of the '505 Patent, and claim 1 of the '492 Patent.

On invalidity, the jury found Samsung failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims were invalid.

The jury awarded Collision $445,494,160.00 in damages as a running royalty. The jury also found Samsung's infringement was willful.

On November 10, 2025, Judge Gilstrap entered final judgment consistent with the jury's verdict. The Court confirmed Samsung's infringement of all asserted claims, upheld the $445,494,160.00 running royalty award, and affirmed the willfulness finding. However, the Court determined that no enhancement of damages was warranted based on the willfulness finding. The Court declared Collision the prevailing party and directed Collision to file a Bill of Costs to recover its litigation costs from Samsung. All other pending requests for relief were denied.

Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]